File talk:Technetium(III) chloride.png

Categorization

@Leyo: In view of your recent reversing edit to this filepage (and other such edits), please explain why this image should not be categorized as Category:"Tc" standing for technetium (and, presumably, also Category:"Cl" standing for chlorine):

• Does this image show both "Tc" and "Cl", or not? And if so,
• do "Tc" and "Cl" on this image stand for anything else than respectively technetium and chlorine?

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you intend to categorize all thousands of structural formulas in Category:Chlorine compounds (incl. subcategories such as Category:Organochlorides etc.)? That is just silly. --Leyo 13:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC) PS. Also element samples need to remain in the main category of the respective element.

The answer is: Yes, media files should be categorized — I’m sure you don’t dispute that notion: All the thousands of photos of partridges and peartrees are categorized by species and date and location, after all, or should/will be, and ditto for milking maids and lords aleaping, so why not chemical formulae also?

Should each file page be tagged with this kind of category, or should it go in a bagging category of their own? I’d say the latter, if/when it exists: If/when we have Category:Organochloride formulas, then it could be tagged with Category:"Cl" standing for chlorine (and ditto for C, O, and H), and then none of its contents would need to be thusly categorized, by trivial application of COM:Overcat. (Some exceptional cases should be separately categorized, such as chemical formulae and diagrams using CJK idiograms, or Daltonian symbols, or some such…)

What I find intriguing is how much the main categories for each element, which I’vew been combing through in these recent days, are (or rather were) so cluttered with obviously miscategorized items, such as landscape photos of American Samoa or As, Belgium, heaped on Category:Arsenic and other such nonsense. One would imagine that these cats would be heavily policed, yet I fixed some of these miscategorizations after more than 10 years in that sorry state…

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Intriguing indeed: While I was composing the reply above not less than eight such categorizations of mine were reverted by you. Looks like this matter should be addressed in a wider forum. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Quick answer, as I need to leave: File:Ca Ar.png and File:Rubidium amp.jpg are good examples to show why moving from the main category of the element to a clumsily named subcategory referring to the atom label. A person who is looking for a picture of an element sample will likely start searching in the main category and then in subcategories depending on their naming. Would they expect to find element samples (or flame tests, to have another example) in a category named "Ca" standing for calcium. I would consider this unlikely. --Leyo 16:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Point taken. I come to this spot of our cat tree from the side of categorizing non-word letter combos — things as disparate as UIC classes, ISO 3166 and 639, or random initialisms. I have meanwhile taken interest to this set of cats on its own merits and have been trying to improve the subcategorization of media files under each element in a perspective wider than the litteral consist of their modern symbols. That is a work in progess in which I will likely make several mistakes and you’re welcome to help out. The brandishing of assorted insults («clumsily», «silly», and «nonsense» — all your words) seems to be the wrong way to go about it. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

参看：Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/04/Category:"Te" standing for tellurium.